Camaro Power Through the Years

[KaBoom1701]

Here's the link to the full article:

http://www.sportscarillustrated.com/...s15C_0267.html

[Chevy_cowboy]

great visual showing the effects of emissions laws and the car industry's struggle to adapt.

[2013 ZL1 #7860]

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

My point as well. Engine HP is measured differently these days. It sounds impressive to say the 5th gen V6 puts out (virtually) the same HP as the 60s era base 396 V8... but it just ain't so.

Ya, the V6 produces more today than the 396 did then...

The real problem we have is the Camaro has gained over 1,000lbs since then.

The 60's muscle car era was full of 15-14 second cars with a few 13 and 12 second cars in the mix but rare.

[RJT Impala]

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

My point as well. Engine HP is measured differently these days. It sounds impressive to say the 5th gen V6 puts out (virtually) the same HP as the 60s era base 396 V8... but it just ain't so.

I think the real difference that we all relate to is the torque curve of the 396 and today's V6. The 396, 325 hp version had 410 ft lb of torque. That was the "nail ya to the seat" sensation that we all remember. That's 132 ft lb difference, and the 396 produced it at lower rpm.

[JR 1]

Originally Posted by RJT Impala

I think the real difference that we all relate to is the torque curve of the 396 and today's V6. The 396, 325 hp version had 410 ft lb of torque. That was the "nail ya to the seat" sensation that we all remember. That's 132 ft lb difference, and the 396 produced it at lower rpm.

I was thinking the same thing. Too bad the chart didn't have torque numbers too.

[kevinw]

i agree with the above on torque too. i have had 327 chevelles and 350 chevelles in the late 60s and early 70s. that still dont have the get up and go that my V6 does now with a rotofab installed. yes, todays camaro is alot heavier than my 68 chevelle was, but the camaro is still faster. but, along with a V8, you get the torque which you dont get as much in on the v6 in stock form

[Mongo RS]

Add in that even the V6 Camaro will flat out spank any first gen if you put a turn on the track....
I miss the old big blocks, but having grown up at the drags in the 60's, I can remember that a car that could run consistent low 13's was considered barely streetable, now it's the base, stock model.

[KaBoom1701]

When I had my 13' 2LT/RS all I know was that it was fast...had great fun on the streets and at a few track events.

Very impressive for 323 HP.

[maddoggyusa]

Originally Posted by PalmerGA

My understanding is that early HP ratings were "at the wheels", where as today's HP ratings are "at the crank". Big difference between 400 HP at the wheels and 400 HP at the crank. (At the wheels is what really matters)

I could be wrong.

no the early HP numbers were done on hand picked engines on engine dynos with headers (no mufflers ) and no accessories. some numbers were purposely high (for bragging rights)... others purposely low (for insurance reasons).

in general, the early numbers were all over the map.

[Smokin19]

We are living in the second and probably the last muscle car era with the best GM has ever produced. Now go out and buy some muscle!

[velocity149]

and for V6 bashers, this chart shows today's V6 Camaros are more powerful than any Camaro produced between 1971 and 2000

[Red2014SS]

Originally Posted by velocity149

and for V6 bashers, this chart shows today's V6 Camaros are more powerful than any Camaro produced between 1971 and 2000

That's a very good observation! I have always said that today's V6 Camaro is the best value on the market. I don't think there is another car in the same price range that can outrun one. The V6 Camaro is sort of like the Vitesse Throttle Controller - the only people that knock them are the ones who've never experienced one.

[Rocky1974]

Originally Posted by 2013 ZL1 #7860

Ya, the V6 produces more today than the 396 did then...

The real problem we have is the Camaro has gained over 1,000lbs since then.

The 60's muscle car era was full of 15-14 second cars with a few 13 and 12 second cars in the mix but rare.

What??!!
My 69 Camaro weighs 3450lbs. My 2010 Camaro weighs 3850lbs.
That looks more like 400lbs to me and all that is safety and convenience features that they hadn't even thought of back then.
While 400lbs is enough to hurt performance, it's no way near 1000lbs. That would kill performance.

[Red2014SS]

Originally Posted by Rocky1974

What??!!
My 69 Camaro weighs 3450lbs. My 2010 Camaro weighs 3850lbs.
That looks more like 400lbs to me and all that is safety and convenience features that they hadn't even thought of back then.
While 400lbs is enough to hurt performance, it's no way near 1000lbs. That would kill performance.

Right on!... Plus, look at the advances made in tire technology, transmissions, and traction control. Any weight gain is more then offset by the newer technology used in today's car.